(Amazon UK link) |
I’m not always a fan of films made on books, but most of those based on Jane Austen’s novels have been excellent. With one or two notable exceptions, admittedly. But ‘Sense and Sensibility’ ranks very highly, in my view.
It’s the story of two sisters, Elinor and Marianne, played respectively by Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet. While the latter was only around twenty years old when this film was made, Emma Thompson was in her mid thirties. Yet the two manage to portray, entirely believably, the sisters who were just 17 and 16 in the book.
Margaret, their younger sister, is fifteen in the book and feels mostly extraneous. But in the film, she is nearly twelve. She’s ‘bookish’ and also likes to climb trees. I thought this change an excellent one; Margaret (Emilie François) is lively and provides some light humour in her outspoken innocence.
The story begins with the loss of their father, and thus of the family home. The laws of inheritance ruled that this mansion must be left, along with the bulk of their father’s fortune, to his only son, John Dashwood. John (James Fleet) is half-brother to the three girls, and rather too easily guided by his materialistic and unpleasant wife Fanny (Harriet Walter). The girls and their mother go to a ‘cottage’ owned by her cousin Sir John Middleton (Robert Hardy) who lives with his mother-in-law Mrs Jennings (wonderfully portrayed by the late Elizabeth Spriggs).
The theme of the story is the contrast between the ‘Sensible’ Elinor and the ‘Sensitive’ Marianne. Each falls in love; each suffers betrayal. But the ways they handle their losses are very different. I’m not sure I entirely believed in the late Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon - Rickman was too often cast as villains, and although he plays Brandon perfectly, it was hard not to see him as Severus Snape. Edward Ferrars is a rather young-looking Hugh Grant (although he would have been 35 at the time the film was produced) - and Grant plays him as his usual slightly bumbling very English man, albeit in 18th century costume. As for Mr Willoughby, played by Greg Wise, I found him somewhat overdone; perhaps deliberately.
While inevitably a film is different from a book, with less introspection and more visuals, I felt that this adaptation was very faithful to the original. My husband hasn’t read the book, but enjoyed the film, vaguely recalling the first time we saw it. There were one or two places where we chuckled, mostly at the wonderfully ironic and brilliantly timed asides from Mr Palmer, perfectly cast as Hugh Laurie.
The rating is U (PG in the US). As befits an upper-class film of this era, there is no violence, no bad language, and no intimate scenes. The prudish might blink at the amount of cleavage shown from time to time, and the story requires mention of illegitimacy and libertines. But if young children were interested in the story (unlikely), these references would go over their heads.
Recommended highly to anyone who likes character-based historical fiction, and to all fans of Jane Austen. It would be well worth watching, too, by anyone studying ‘Sense and Sensibility’ at high school or university.
Other recommended adaptations of Jane Austen books include:
Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews
Margaret, their younger sister, is fifteen in the book and feels mostly extraneous. But in the film, she is nearly twelve. She’s ‘bookish’ and also likes to climb trees. I thought this change an excellent one; Margaret (Emilie François) is lively and provides some light humour in her outspoken innocence.
The story begins with the loss of their father, and thus of the family home. The laws of inheritance ruled that this mansion must be left, along with the bulk of their father’s fortune, to his only son, John Dashwood. John (James Fleet) is half-brother to the three girls, and rather too easily guided by his materialistic and unpleasant wife Fanny (Harriet Walter). The girls and their mother go to a ‘cottage’ owned by her cousin Sir John Middleton (Robert Hardy) who lives with his mother-in-law Mrs Jennings (wonderfully portrayed by the late Elizabeth Spriggs).
The theme of the story is the contrast between the ‘Sensible’ Elinor and the ‘Sensitive’ Marianne. Each falls in love; each suffers betrayal. But the ways they handle their losses are very different. I’m not sure I entirely believed in the late Alan Rickman as Colonel Brandon - Rickman was too often cast as villains, and although he plays Brandon perfectly, it was hard not to see him as Severus Snape. Edward Ferrars is a rather young-looking Hugh Grant (although he would have been 35 at the time the film was produced) - and Grant plays him as his usual slightly bumbling very English man, albeit in 18th century costume. As for Mr Willoughby, played by Greg Wise, I found him somewhat overdone; perhaps deliberately.
While inevitably a film is different from a book, with less introspection and more visuals, I felt that this adaptation was very faithful to the original. My husband hasn’t read the book, but enjoyed the film, vaguely recalling the first time we saw it. There were one or two places where we chuckled, mostly at the wonderfully ironic and brilliantly timed asides from Mr Palmer, perfectly cast as Hugh Laurie.
The rating is U (PG in the US). As befits an upper-class film of this era, there is no violence, no bad language, and no intimate scenes. The prudish might blink at the amount of cleavage shown from time to time, and the story requires mention of illegitimacy and libertines. But if young children were interested in the story (unlikely), these references would go over their heads.
Recommended highly to anyone who likes character-based historical fiction, and to all fans of Jane Austen. It would be well worth watching, too, by anyone studying ‘Sense and Sensibility’ at high school or university.
Other recommended adaptations of Jane Austen books include:
Review copyright 2018 Sue's DVD Reviews
1 comment:
I'm often not a big fan of books made into movies either. Some I've watched, and liked, others I've been really disappointed. This is one I haven't watched because I really liked the book. Thanks for the review, I might have to give the movie a look.
Post a Comment